This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Jeff Sutherland, Ph.D.
Chief Technology Officer
The Zen of SCRUM
So simple, anyone can implement it! So easy, all can benefit! So subtle, few achieve transcendent performance … How is it that a project manager does nothing, and achieves everything? Interlocking principles emerge product like jigsaw puzzle. Novice removes one piece -- engine never fires on all cylinders … Who can know why? ScrumMaster must understand deeply and practice rigorously. Only then will team members say, ―This experience changed my life!‖
Complex Adaptive Systems (cas)
Interacting agents respond to stimuli. Stimulus-response behavior is defined in terms of rules. Agents adapt by changing rules as experience accumulates.
Agents aggregate into meta-agents whose behavior is emergent.
How can a collection of dumb things emerge smart system behavior?
Web services? 1998 Agents 1995 Components 1993 Business Objects 1980 Classes 1970 Procedures
Chaos Fragmentation cas Self Organization Frozen
Maamar, Zakaria and Sutherland, Jeff (2000) Toward Intelligent Business Objects: Focusing on Techniques to Enhance Business Objects that Exhibit Goal-Oriented Behaviors. Communications of the ACM 40:10:99-101.
Enterprise Systems are cas
Business entities are examples of complex adaptive
systems. Modification time is on the order of months or years, roughly time required to change software. Automating business processes renders parts of the business in software. Business systems have severely constrained rule sets, making ideal test bed for cas concepts.
Sutherland, Jeff and van den Heuvel, Willem-Jan (2002) Developing and integrating enterprise components and services: Enterprise application integration and complex adaptive systems. Communications of the ACM 45:10:59-64.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. 343. depending on interactions between the features of that element and the features of the environment in which it persists (reuse). Simon and Schuster. Heredity or replication: the elements have the capacity to create copies or replicas of themselves (inheritance). . Daniel Dennett. 1995. p.Objects Meet Requirements for Evolution Variation: there is a continuing abundance of different elements (class libraries). Differential "fitness": the number of copies of an element that are created in a given time varies.
IEEE Computer. 10-19.Do Programmers Meet Evolutionary Requirements? Algorithms create movement through design space – Simple minded repetitive procedure – Incremental change to adjacent designs "Cranes" accelerate movement through design space – Sex and genetic engineers – Evolutionary prototyping and smart people – Emergent architecture Brooks. 20. Vol. No. . pp. April 1987. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Fred. 4.
menus. icons. pointers) Unpredictability of the waterfall model of software Too many projects fail development Tony Wasserman. Nov 1996. Toward a Discipline of Software Engineering. IEEE Software 13:6:23-31. .Change is Imperative: Wasserman's 7 Factors Driving Change Criticality of time to market Shift in computing economics Powerful desktop computers Extensive networks and the Web Growing availability of object technology WIMP (windows.
Wrong?" "The Waterfall Methodology!" (Paul Bassett) Analysis Paralysis – static modeling overused – specs are stale baked Design-from-Scratch – no generic models – no standard architectures Large Project Teams User Intermediaries No Early Warning Signals Bassett. Paul G. . 1997. Over Budget. Framing Software Reuse: Lessons from the Real World. Yourdon Press Computing Series."Why Are Systems Late.
The 5th Annual JAWS S3 Proceedings. 4. 1990 . Righteous Solutions. Each wicked problem is essentially unique. Degrace and Hulet's book. Wicked Problems. 75% of [DOD] projects failed or were never used. The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable solutions. Prentice Hall. Vol. 1973. Part of the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too early what type of solution to apply. but good-or-bad … getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good enough" can be a challenge. Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences. Each attempt at creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem. The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted. A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that change over time.Wicked Problems: Righteous Solutions Out of a total cost of $37B for the sample set. Rittel. There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. embedded in a dynamic social context. and only 2% were used without extensive modification. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Elsevier. Policy Sciences. stakeholders lose interest or political realities change. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 1999. Jarzombek. H and Webber M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.
1995]. . Wegner's Lemma .it is not possible to completely specify an interactive system [Wegner.Software Development is an Empirical Process Ziv's Uncertainty Principle in Software Engineering - uncertainty is inherent and inevitable in software development processes and products [Ziv. the requirements will not be completely known until after the users have used it. 1996].for a new software system. Humphrey's Requirements Uncertainty Principle .
Productivity: All at Once Models Single Super-Programmer Handcuffing two programmers together Brook’s Surgical Team Borland Quattro project Goldratt’s ―The Goal‖ Senge’s systems thinking Holland’s complex adaptive systems .
. and Myers. 491 medium sized projects with 35. Ware. Cutter Information Corp.. Familiar Metrics Management: Small is Beautiful-Once Again.000 SLOC (source lines of code) Putnam. IT Metrics Strategis IV:8:12-16. August 1998.000-95.Team Size: Development Effort in Months The smaller the better. Lawrence H.
Ware..000 SLOC (source lines of code) Putnam. Familiar Metrics Management: Small is Beautiful-Once Again.Team Size: Development Time in Months Sweet spot is 5-7 people 491 medium sized projects with 35. . Cutter Information Corp. and Myers. IT Metrics Strategis IV:8:12-16. August 1998. Lawrence H.000-95.
Capers. Applied Software Measurement.Bell Labs Report on most productive project ever: Borland Quattro for Windows 1. Second Edition.000 lines of C++ code Time in months Staff Function points per staff month BWP 31 8 77 Industry standard >50 >100 2 Jones.000. McGraw Hill. 1997. BQW .
QA integral to team. Quality. Level 3 paradigm shift is self-directing team. all making technical contributions Higher communication saturation than 89% of projects More even distribution of workload ―Anti-schismogenetic‖ – no cliques Highly iterative development Strong architectural interaction with implementation More time spent in project team meetings than anything else – several hours a day Gerry Weinberg notes that CMM Level 1 and 2 teams need strong managerial direction. . product management.James Coplien. Borland team was clearly in this category. Borland Software Craftsmanship: A New Look at Process. and Productivity. Orlando. although not by commonly accepted criteria. processes. One of most remarkable organizations. 1994. and development cultures seen in AT&T Bell Laboratories Pasteur process research project Project management. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Borland International Conference.
‖ Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Military Software. and it saves time and money.Team comments on Quattro project ―We are satisfied by doing real work. or how big it will grow. You can’t predict its exact shape. . Oct 1987.‖ ―Software is like a plant that grows.‖ ―There are no rules for this kind of thing—it’s never been done before.‖ ―Evolutionary development is best technically.
Vic. IEEE Computer. Project Mercury.Earliest published reference to IID: – Robert Glass. IBM Federal Systems Devision – Gerry Weinberg 1960 – Weinberg teaching IID at IBM Systems Research Institute 1969 . Craig and Basili.History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) 1956 – Benington’s stagewise model – USAF SAGE System 1957 – IBM Service Bureau Corp. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. Mar 1969 Larman. June 2003 (in press) . Elementary Level Discussion of Compiler/Interpreter Writing. ACM Computing Surveys.
Communications of the ACM. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. Development. Design. Dec 1975. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. Sept 1984. Albert. Integration: Space Shuttle Flight Software. Iterative Enhancement: A Practical Technique for Software Development. 1977-1980 – IBM FSD builds NASA Space Shuttle software in 17 iterations over 31 months. Vic. IEEE Computer. averaging 8 weeks per iteration – Madden and Rone. Craig and Basili. 1971 1972 – TRW uses IID on $100M Army Site Defense software 1975 – First original paper devoted to IID – Gasili. Vic and Turner. June 2003 (in press) . Harlan.History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) 1971 – IBM Federal Systems Division – Mills. In Debugging Techniques in Large Systems. Prentice Hall. Larman. Top-down programming in Large Systems.
Origins of RUP 1995 – Microsoft IID published – – 1996 – Kruchten. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Software Process and Software Environments. March. IEEE Computer. Jim. Barry. Vic. McCarthy. April 1987 – 1994 – First SCRUM at Easel Corporation 1994 – DOD must manage programs using iterative development – Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Acquiring Defense Software Commercially. 1986 – Brooks. 1995. or its effectiveness [as incremental development]. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Crosstalk. Craig and Basili. Dynamics of Software Development.History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) 1985 – Barry Boehm’s Spiral Model – Boehm. 1985 Nothing … has so radically changed my own practice. IEEE Computer. Larman. No Silver Bullet. Fred. Microsoft Press. July. A Rational Development Process. June 2003 (in press) . June 1994. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development.
75% of projects failed or were never used. Vic. will increase success rate. Origin of Feature-Driven Development Top reason for massive project failures was waterfall methods. June 2003 (in press) . Jarzombek. Out of a total cost of $37B for the sample set. 1996 – Larman meets with principal author of DD-STD-2167 1997 – Coad and DeLuca rescue Singapore project – – 1998 – Standish Group CHAOS Project 1999 – Publication of extensive DOD failures – Larman. 1999. The 5th Annual JAWS S3 Proceedings. With the hindsight of iterative experience.History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) 1996 – Kent Beck Chrysler Project – – Origin of XP David Maibor expressed regret for the creation of the waterfall-based standard. he would recommend IID. He had not learned of incremental development at the time and based his advice on textbooks and consultants advocating the waterfall method. ―Research also indicates that smaller time frames. IEEE Computer. and only 2% were used without extensive modification. Craig and Basili. with delivery of software components early and often. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development.
IEEE Computer. Larman.History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) 2001 – 17 process expert “anarchists” meet at Snow Bird – Agile Manifesto initiated 100s of books and papers on agile development 2001 – MacCormack’s study of key success factors – MacCormack. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. Product-Develoment Practices that Work. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2. Vic. 2001. Alan. Craig and Basili. June 2003 (in press) .
Manifesto for Agile Software Development We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. while there is value in the items on the right. . we value the items on the left more. Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is.
. Product-Development Practices That Work: How Internet Companies Build Software. Winter 2001. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2:75-84. Alan.MacCormack Process Evolution Waterfall model – sequential process maintains a document trail Rapid-Prototyping Model – disposable prototype helps establish customer preference Spiral Model – series of prototypes identifies major risks Incremental or Staged Delivery Model – system is delivered to customer in chunks Evolutionary Delivery Model – iterative approach in which customers test an actual version of the software MacCormack.
Product-Development Practices That Work: How Internet Companies Build Software. Winter 2001.MacCormack Success Factors Early release of evolving product design to customers. Alan. Daily incorporation of new software code and rapid feedback on design changes A team with broad-based experience in shipping multiple projects Major investment in design of product architecture MacCormack. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2:75-84. .
Hirotaka and Nonaka. . Xerox. 86116. Brother. reprint no. Canon. Honda. Harvard Business Review 64:1:137-146 (Jan/Feb). The new new product development game. 3M. NEC.Rugby Takeuchi. Epson. HP Old model – Relay Race – Speed and flexibility not adequate in today’s market New model . Ikujiro. 1986.SCRUM Origins: Takeuchi and Nonaka Lessons from Fuji-Xerox.
Moving the SCRUM downfield .
Each element.Takeuchi and Nonaka Success Factors Built-in instability Self-organizing project teams Overlapping development phases ―Multilearning‖ Subtle control Organizational transfer of learning ―These characteristics are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. by itself. the characteristics can product a powerful new set of dynamics that will make a difference. does not bring about speed and flexibility. But taken as a whole.‖ .
Project team is offered extremely challenging goals with wide measure of freedom. removing the ladder. I believe creativity is born by pushing people against the wall and pressuring them almost to the extreme.Factor 1: Built-in instability Top management kicks off development process by signaling broad goal. – Example: Fuji-Xerox gave FX-3500 project team two years to come up with a copier that cut costs in half Top management creates an element of tension in the project team through challenging requirements with wide freedom to achieve strategic objective. – Honda Executive: ―It’s like putting the team members on the second floor. and telling them to jump or else.‖ .
Left to stew. A group possesses a self-organizing capability when it exhibits three conditions. – Autonomy – Self-transcendence – Cross-fertilization At some point.Factor 2: Self-organizing project teams A project team takes on a self-organizing character as it is driven to a state of ―zero information‖ – where prior knowledge does not apply. the team begins to create its own concept. The project team begins to operate like a start-up company. the process begins to create its own dynamic order. ScrumDown at the Radcliffe Rugby Club .
average age 27. “Develop the kind of car that the youth segment would like to drive.‖ Example: IBM development of personal computer Example: Honda City project team. money. and moral support at the outset. top management acts as a venture capitalist – ―We open our purse and keep our mouth closed.” . management seldom intervenes and the team is free to set its own direction. On a day to day basis. In a way.Autonomy Headquarters involvement is limited to providing guidance.
Example: Canon AE-1 team Flyhalf Sarah Schooler of Radcliffe fending off Boston College . they devise ways to override the status quo and make the big discovery. By pursuing what appear to be contradictory goals.Self-transcendence The project teams appear to be absorbed in the never- ending quest for ―the limit.‖ They elevate their goals through the development process.
Cross-fertilization Team with wide variety of specializations. and behavior patterns carries out new product development. ―When all team members are in one room. others information becomes yours without even trying. thought processes. Working in one large room is best (Fuji-Xerox).‖ Radcliffe Rugby Football Club .
Factor 3: Overlapping Development Phases Self-organizing character of the team produces unique dynamic or rhythm Sashimi system – Fuji Xerox Rugby system – Honda Hard merits (demerits) – Speed and flexibility (watch out for muck and mall) Soft merits – Share responsibility and cooperation – Stimulates involvement and commitment – Sharpens a problem-solving focus – Develops initiative and diversified skills – Heightens sensitivity to market conditions .
Factor 4: Multilearning Learning by doing in two dimensions – Across organization – Across specialty Enhanced learning opportunities – 15% of time devoted to ―dreams‖ – 3M – Peer pressure to study – Send team to Europe to look around – Honda – Bring in top academics and consultants – HP Everyone learns multiple skills .
Factor 5: Subtle Control Management establishes checkpoints – Prevents instability. ambiguity. control by love = ―subtle control‖ Management responsible for: – – – – – – Selecting team members for balanced team Creating an open working environment Encouraging engineers to go out in the field Establishing rewards based on group performance Tolerating and anticipating mistakes Encouraging suppliers to become self-organizing . control by peer pressure. and tension from turning into chaos Emphasis on self-control.
processes.Factor 6: Organizational Transfer of Learning Transfer knowledge outside group – Scatter successful team to new projects – Institutionalize practice (monthly demos at IDX) Consciously pursue unlearning – Next generation must be 40% better – Cut product cycle by 80% – Scrap old parts. tools .
– But in times of desperation. . Push/Pull Principle: Differentiation in concept phase. Control Anti-Pattern: Seniority based companies have difficult time. integration dominates in implementation phase Spread the Wealth Principle: Non-experts take on new tasks. Strategic decisions delayed to last moment. Cuckoo Principle: Successful SCRUMs become company models (or they can get crushed because they are different).Challenges and Opportunities Winding the Rubber Band Principle: Broad mandate and demanding goals create tension. Anti-Waterfall Principle: Operational decisions are made incrementally. SCRUMs are easily created.
Barry. pp 61-72. The Spiral methodology "peels the onion". Proceedings of an International Workshop on Software Process and Software Environments. the phases and phase processes are still linear. 1985. March 27-29.W. or should be ended. Boehm. This is the most commonly used variant of the Waterfall today. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. August 1986. However. Boehm. B. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. California. . A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.21. A prototype lets users determine if the project is on track. IEEE Computer. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. May 1988. Coto de Caza. vol. should be sent back to prior phases.Spiral Methodology Barry Boehm introduced the Spiral Methodology to "fix" problems with the Waterfall Methodology. Barry. Boehm. progressing through "layers" of the development process. Trabuco Canyon. #5.
and improves overall flexibility. ensures delivery of (sub)systems. but each iteration only addresses one subsystem. Still assumes that the underlying development processes are defined and linear. . reduces risk. Further iterations can add resources to the project while ramping up the speed of delivery.Iterative Methology The Iterative methodology improves on the Spiral methodology. Improves cost control. Each iteration consists of all of the standard Waterfall phases.
SCRUM Methodology The first and last phases (Planning and Closure) consist of defined processes. . The deliverable can be changed at any time. The deliverable is determined during the project based on the environment. The Sprint phase is an empirical process. It is treated as a black box that requires external controls. Sprints are nonlinear and flexible. Sprints are used to evolve the final product. The project is open to the environment until the Closure phase.
Methodology Comparison .
Jeff Sutherland et al.). SCRUM Development Process. Current approaches rests on the fallacy that the development processes are defined. predictable processes. Schwaber. Ken. 1997. They lack flexibility needed to cope with the unpredictable results and respond to a complex environment.Risk with Current Methodologies Any methodology is better than nothing. . Business Object Design and Implementation (Eds. London: Springer-Verlag.
. Roger. Collier Books. Steven. Lewin. SCRUM can accelerate closure by inducing the phenomenon known as "punctuated equilibrium" seen in the evolution of biological species.SCRUM Lowers Risk Development teams need to operate adaptively within a complex environment using imprecise processes. Vintage Books. 1994. Levy. Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier Where Computers Meet Biology. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. 1993.
org http://jeffsutherland. Ph. Chief Technology Officer jeff.Agile Project Management With SCRUM: Theory and Practice Jeff Sutherland.sutherland@computer.D.com .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.